Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why not look up the word consent, application, submit? Scared you will see that those actions constitute consent?
Click to expand...

Most people who post here posess the basic ability to look words up.
What they do not do, however, is mix up definitions and use words out of context.... or "Do a Menard" as some might call it.
 
FreemanMenard said:
LMAO!

IN a court of law, if you were the prosecuting attorney, that would be your argument? I testify, and you simply state, "I DO NOT BELIEVE IT. Make him prove it to me your Honour!" without you having to bring any evidence to that contradicts my testimony?

LMAO!

:boggled:
:boggled:
Click to expand...

Well, laughing boy all one has to do is read Eldon Warman’s cases to see that you are, as a fact of law, wrong.

Do you mean to say that after thousands of hours of study you haven’t read what happened to Warman?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Wow you line in a clear tyranny, and you defend it! So much for your 'free society' eh?
Click to expand...

And once again you whip out the "is=ought" fallacy. I am not talking about what the government should do. I am talking about what the government actually does.

Signatures on applications which are then submitted to you is not consent? And they are not hiding it? What if it was proven that it is in fact evidence of consent, and then the fact that they secured that signature without informing you that you are consenting?

Why not look up the word consent, application, submit? Scared you will see that those actions constitute consent?
Click to expand...

No application that I ever signed indicated that it was about consenting to statutes. If they are tricking people into consenting to something without any real disclosure, then that is fraud, which is supposed to be against The Law.
 
Ah more of Menard stating the same old claims again, and again, and again. Very childish.

Got any proof? Nope

Just demonstrating his power of lying once again too
 
Bishop said:
And once again you whip out the "is=ought" fallacy. I am not talking about what the government should do. I am talking about what the government actually does.



No application that I ever signed indicated that it was about consenting to statutes. If they are tricking people into consenting to something without any real disclosure, then that is fraud, which is supposed to be against The Law.
Click to expand...

And I am not talking about the ought, but the is. What they actually do is get people to sign and submit applications. Or do you claim they do not do that?
 
FreemanMenard said:
What would you accept as evidence of me successfully avoiding court and charges?

Court records which do not exist because I avoided court? :boggled:
Click to expand...

You could start by explaining how it is that at the same time you say you were divorcing yourself from the authority of Canadian government that same government was maintaining custody of little Elizabeth, enforcing airline regulations on you and towing cars out from under you.
 
FreemanMenard said:
The fact I am not in jail, and you are incapable of pointing to court records which contradict my testimony.
Click to expand...

I would like to point out that I have just been crowned King of Denmark, and you have all been made my Princes and Princesses.

This is undeniably true because I am not in jail.

ETA: I have checked with The House of Glücksburg and they have no documents stating otherwise.
 
Last edited:
arayder said:
You could start by explaining how it is that at the same time you say you were divorcing yourself from the authority of Canadian government that same government was maintaining custody of little Elizabeth, enforcing airline regulations on you and towing cars out from under you.
Click to expand...

Now there you go bringing up pesky reality again, bad bad arayder!
 
abaddon said:
That is another dodge.

What evidence do you have that you such a court case acquitted you, or that a policeman released you? Or anything?
Click to expand...

Menard says the government has no authority over him, but the fact is the BC courts ordered him to stop filing papers and playing lawyer in the Province’s courts and they made it stick.

Menard has dutifully complied with the court’s orders!
 
FreemanMenard said:
The fact I am not in jail, and you are incapable of pointing to court records which contradict my testimony.
Click to expand...

As are many thousands of felons, criminals, rogues, rascals, scoundrels, tax protestors and other riff-raff avoiding the long arm of the law.

Its easy to hide, it isn't so easy to stand up and take on the government in court - that sonny is what you don't do - and that is why you fail - and that is why you come here and lie about it....lol
 
Rob, you anecdotes posses no weight of evidence.

The case you pointed out earlier today, that may been not what you were hoping it was about, but it was evidence, just not that you theories hold anything.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Again, the onus would be on the other side to prove they can govern without consent. Something none of you have been able to do without claiming a bigger stick makes you right.
Click to expand...

Nobody is trying to do this without claiming a bigger stick makes it possible. That bigger stick is why it is possible and why it happens every day. Nobody has to provide any alternate explanation because none exists and none is needed by the court to enforce laws.

A claim of right ala Freeman does in fact rely upon a specific set of circumstances.

Those being that a notice understanding and intent was shared with the people who think they are above the law, and a claim of right served. These are specific sets of circumstances are they not?
Click to expand...

The distinction I am making is between the freeman claim of right which is a document that anyone can make regardless of their situation, and the de facto claim of right which is not a document or a "thing" you can create, but rather a set of circumstances you might find yourself in. According to the de facto courts you canot simply will a claim of right into existence by writing those words on a piece of paper. In freeman law you can have a claim of right in any circumstance by drafting a document titled "claim of right." This is the distinction. The two concepts are miles apart despite sharing the same name.
 
arayder said:
Menard says the government has no authority over him, but the fact is the BC courts ordered him to stop filing papers and playing lawyer in the Province’s courts and they made it stick.

Menard has dutifully complied with the court’s orders!
Click to expand...

I know.
But RB's claim is that he has successfully FOTL'd his way out of things. Those things remain unidentified, and had it happened, there would be official records.
 
To keep it clear perhaps we should call the Freeman Claim of right a CORN, Claim of right (NOT!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom